RSS

Mike Schouten: Doctors should be allowed to opt out of providing birth-control pills or abortions

11 Jul
Mike Schouten: Doctors should be allowed to opt out of providing birth-control pills or abortions

As with the progs howling with outrage at the Hobby Lobby decision Stateside, so too do progs here in Canada want to force trads to violate their consciences.

Totalitarians, the whole lot of them.

Let’s hope and pray the CPSO does the right thing.

National Post | Full Comment

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) is asking for public input as part of its regular review of policy guidelines. At issue in this current review is the right of doctors to refuse to provide certain treatments based on religious or moral grounds.

There will always be some tension between the moral convictions of an individual medical professional who adheres to his or her own worldview and the different procedures that are legally available in a pluralistic society. The current CPSO guidelines recognize this tension. In an effort to balance competing interests, the policy allows doctors to refrain from performing non-emergency procedures should the procedures violate their individual conscience.

It is always beneficial to review policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to the health and wellbeing of Canadians. But the current review and discussion over CPSO guidelines is not about improving care for residents of Ontario. Instead…

View original post 586 more words

Advertisements
 
9 Comments

Posted by on July 11, 2014 in Canada, feral females, law, The Kulturkampf

 

9 responses to “Mike Schouten: Doctors should be allowed to opt out of providing birth-control pills or abortions

  1. James and the Giant Peach

    July 11, 2014 at 11:33 pm

    I was thinking about this post and your previous post with the billboard, and how they are similar, yet how they differ. I thought of a funny thought process, and wanted to know what you think about it Will.

    Here goes:

    In this post I would agree that a doctor should not be forced to do it as a Christian is not held to the standard of the world. But in your previous post, I would say I do not care about a law protecting babies that are in the mother.

    Why? Because as Paul says we are not to judge those outside of the church but those inside. So if gentiles want to abort, let them abort plenty. Did the Israelites care about the followers of Baal who sacrificed their children? Nah. But we hold our own to a higher standard. If there is a Christian among us, she should not be able to abort. But ultimately the case is that we don’t make the political laws of the world.

    So rather than impose on general society laws on people, including non-Christians, based on Christian morals, we should seek to make more Christians who follow the moral laws of God.

    What do you think?

     
  2. Will S.

    July 12, 2014 at 2:18 am

    Well, to me, the thing is, we mustn’t confuse church and state, of course; and since Paul was talking about what we the church should do, that can possibly differ from what the state should do – but it may or may not, depending.

    Here’s the thing: we have laws against murder, in the usual sense of the those already born, because the state sees it as a threat to the order and security of the state, certainly – but also because our laws are derived from Christian principles.

    We don’t care, as a society, that not everyone may agree that murder is wrong; our government considers it so wrong, so beyond the pale, that such doesn’t factor in as a consideration.

    The question is, should the state treat abortion as a form of murder, and seek to protect the most vulnerable in our society, unborn citizens, who unlike most of the rest of us, can’t even necessarily count on their own parents to stand up for them – if the mothers are bent on aborting them – and should not the state extend the full protection of the law to them to not have their lives snuffed out, as it does to those of us who’ve been born?

    Is it any more wrong for a Christian standard to be imposed on all in a society in such a matter, than it is for a similar Christian standard (the commandment to not murder) to similarly be imposed on all?

    I think not.

    I submit that abortion is murder, and must be treated as such by the state.

     
  3. James and the Giant Peach

    July 12, 2014 at 2:23 pm

    “Here’s the thing: we have laws against murder, in the usual sense of the those already born, because the state sees it as a threat to the order and security of the state, certainly – but also because our laws are derived from Christian principles.” So what if we argued against abortion from that point, do you think it would work? Say talk about the low fertility rate among non-immigrants in the U.S. and how abortion contributes to it. Therefore abortion is a threat to the order and security of the state.

    “Is it any more wrong for a Christian standard to be imposed on all in a society in such a matter, than it is for a similar Christian standard (the commandment to not murder) to similarly be imposed on all?

    I think not.”

    I have mixed feelings about this. Most societies whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, have laws against murder for the reason you listed earlier: they see it as a threat to the order and security of the state. However in addition to that, the Christian position against murder is that the spirit of God is breathed into each person, even in their fetal state. So to abort a fetus, is to kill something with the spirit of God in it, hence murder. But since general society tries to derive their reasoning for prohibiting murder from something else, they do not see the sanctity of the fetus as a being with the spirit of God, and hence do not see it as murder. So then the Christian argument that the spirit is from God and it is a sin to strike down even a fetus, falls on deaf ears because general society has not been arguing about murder from the standpoint of the spirit of God. The only way to convince them of the spirit of God, is to make them Christian first.

    I guess what I am trying to say is, the abortion of a fetus makes sense as murder for Christians because we know God has breathed in his spirit into each one of us. But since non-Christians don’t that argument falls on deaf ears unless they become a Christian first. What do you think?

     
  4. Will S.

    July 12, 2014 at 4:29 pm

    I guess the question is, do we cede the public square to progs, because the public no longer cares about gay marriage, abortion, etc., and let them change all the laws to suit themselves? Or do we nevertheless fight for what we believe in, fight to keep good laws and overturn bad ones and return to the status quo ante, to put the laws in harmony with God’s way, as they used to be moreso than now?

    I’m a reactionary; I want to change the laws back. I realize that may be impossible absent a revival, but we need to be out there, witnessing, proclaiming what we believe in the public square; who knows, we might even get people coming to church to learn more why we believe as we do – then individuals’ souls may be saved, and the more that happens, the greater the chance of turning things around eventually.

    I see no reason to cede the public square to the progs, and let them redefine religion as a purely private matter, as they are bent on doing – while nevertheless doing their level best to stamp it out, in which they have succeeded to a great degree, what with all the unchurched, anti-Christians out there today, products of the media, educational system, entertainment industry, etc.

    Why shouldn’t we desire to put the laws more in harmony with God’s laws, as they used to? Surely God would have us fight evil in the laws of the state, as well as trying to encourage both believers and others to live right.

    We can see, after all, that progs have no interest in ‘live and let live’; they want to stamp us out.

    Therefore, our best defense is to go on the offensive (not in the sense of being unnecessarily obnoxious, but being ardent in promoting God’s ways, standing for true social justice).

    And there are non-believers out there who aren’t progs, who aren’t ardent atheists or agnostics, but vaguely deistic, who vaguely believe in the concept of a creator god, the soul, and the like; these can be persuaded against abortion; there are secularist pro-life organizations out there; why shouldn’t we work alongside such people to try to achieve a godly political aim – to end the horrendous, sacrilegious abomination of abortion?

     
  5. Will S.

    July 12, 2014 at 4:31 pm

    Now, we can also employ rationalist, non-religious, secular objections to abortion, too – because they are also valid, and we can try to encourage non-believers to join us in embracing the pro-life cause, for that reason, to try to overturn a harmful law…

    Whatever works, and isn’t immoral…

     
  6. James and the Giant Peach

    July 12, 2014 at 9:20 pm

    True that.

     
  7. Will S.

    July 12, 2014 at 11:02 pm

    The guy who wrote this article I’ve reblogged, is from the same organization that put up the billboard in the previous post. IOW, they’re taking a multi-pronged approach to fighting abortion. Ultimately, they want to bring in a law banning abortion, but they’re willing to going about fighting the status quo in different ways; one, arguing for the right of doctors to not be forced to perform activities that violate their consciences, whether prescribing birth control or morning after pills, or performing abortions or referrals for them, or whatever – that isn’t even arguing about abortion itself, but merely the right of medical professionals to be able to (a) practice medicine while not conforming to progressive dogmas and (b) not being forced to act against their consciences in practicing medicine.

    Hopefully, there still are many – enough – non-religious people of goodwill out there that can get behind freedom of conscience issues along with us, that physicians who are trads won’t get pushed out altogether, forced to quit.

    So, that’s part of the approach.

    Another, is asking why we should be forced to pay for abortion, if it isn’t medically necessary in terms of ectopic pregnancies threatening mother’s lives, and the like; why can’t they pay for it themselves, so that those of us who disagree don’t have to, as taxpayers, foot the bill?

    Again, that ought to be something some secular people of goodwill ought to be able to join us, and libertarians, in getting behind – why must the state pay for every medical procedure?

    And so, while the end goal is still the intent to get abortion on demand for non-medically-necessary reasons banned, they take a multi-pronged approach to attacking the status quo.

    I think this pragmatic approach is more likely to get results, than any other.

    At the very least, it’s more than just prayer and demonstrations. They encourage people writing and phoning their MPs (equivalent of Congressmen), actively getting involved in meeting with politicians to explain our positions as Christians, to help explain our worldview to them, so they can get where we’re coming from.

    I think it’s a good thing, and a good way of going about trying to solve the problem.

    My two cents. 🙂

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s